Acquiescence Rulings

AR 97-3(11)

EFFECTIVE/PUBLICATION DATE: 8/4/97

Acquiescence Ruling 97-3(11)

AR 97-3(11): Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d
1516 (11th Cir. 1992) -- Application of a State's Intestacy Law
Requirement that Paternity be Established During the Lifetime of the
Father -- Title II of the Social Security Act.

Issue:

Whether, in determining a child's status under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the
Social Security Act (the Act), the Social Security Administration
(SSA),[1] in applying the
requirement imposed by a State's law of intestate succession that an
illegitimate child establish paternity during the lifetime of the father,
created an insurmountable barrier that violated the constitutional right
to equal protection of the law.

Circuit:

Applicability of Ruling:

This Ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative
levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
hearing and Appeals Council).

Description of Case:

On April 11, 1985, Cassandra Daniels, who was 14 years old, gave birth to
a son, Adonis Daniels. Daniels claimed that Kirby Marshall was Adonis'
father even though Daniels and Marshall never married or lived together,
and a father's name was not listed on the child's birth certificate.
Although Marshall did not provide support for Adonis, both Daniels' mother
and Marshall's mother stated that he was the father. Marshall died in an
automobile accident on September 12, 1987.

In November 1987 Daniels filed an application, on behalf of Adonis, for
child's benefits on Marshall's earnings record but the claim was denied,
both initially and upon reconsideration, because the child did not satisfy
any of the statutory entitlement requirements. After a hearing, an ALJ
found that Adonis was not Marshall's "child" under section 216(h)(3) of
the Act because the deceased wage earner was not living with or
contributing to the support of Adonis at the time of his death. The ALJ
also found that Adonis was not entitled under the other definitions of
child in section 216(h), including the definition incorporated by
reference from the Georgia law of intestate
succession.[2] However, the ALJ
stated that Adonis appeared to be the child of the worker. The Appeals
Council denied Daniels' request for review of the ALJ's decision.

The plaintiff sought judicial review alleging that SSA's application of
the Georgia statutory scheme for intestate succession was unconstitutional
because it denied her child equal protection of law. The district court
affirmed SSA's findings and rejected the constitutional challenge. Daniels
appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the judgment of the district court on the grounds that, as
applied to the particular facts of the case, SSA's use of Georgia
intestacy law was unconstitutional.

Holding:

After carefully considering the principles stated in the leading cases
addressing the constitutionality of similar State statutes, the Court of
Appeals held that "as applied to this case, the Social Security Act's
incorporation of the Georgia intestacy scheme violates equal
protection."[3] Noting that the
United States Supreme Court, in Pickett v. Brown, had ruled
unconstitutional a State statute that imposed a two-year limit on
paternity and child support actions on behalf of certain illegitimate
children, the Daniels court found that the obstacles that prevented
a child from establishing paternity during the first two years after birth
persisted, at least, into the third year. Accordingly, the court concluded
that "where the father died less than two and one-half years after Adonis'
birth, the requirement that paternity be established during the lifetime
of the father effectively 'impose[d] an unconstitutional insurmountable
barrier which denie[d] appellant the equal protection of the
laws.'"[4]

The court also noted that Daniels was further impeded in establishing the
paternity of her child because of her status as a minor. Although the
court did not hold that the Georgia intestacy statute was
unconstitutional, it found that SSA's application of that statute to the
specific facts of the case when determining Daniels' eligibility for
Social Security survivors benefits violated equal protection.

Statement As To How Daniels Differs From Social Security
Policy

In accordance with section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, SSA uses State laws to
decide whether a claimant is the child of a deceased worker. Under its
regulation (20 CFR 404.354(b)) implementing section 216(h)(2)(A), SSA
"look[s] to the laws that were in effect at the time the insured worker
died in the State where the insured had his or her permanent home." The
State laws governing intestate succession (i.e., the laws State courts use
to decide whether a claimant could inherit a child's share of the worker's
personal property if the worker had died without leaving a will) are
controlling.

The Daniels court found that the Act's incorporation of the Georgia
intestacy law's requirement that the paternity of an illegitimate child be
established during the lifetime of the father was unconstitutional as
applied to the facts in Daniels' case, where paternity would have had to
be established in less than two and one-half years from the date of the
child's birth. Under these circumstances, the court found that the
requirement constituted an insurmountable barrier and violated the child's
right to equal protection of law.

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply The Daniels Decision Within The
Circuit

This Ruling applies only to cases where the applicant for surviving
child's benefits under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act resides in Alabama,
Florida or Georgia at the time of the determination or decision at any
administrative level, i.e., initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing or
Appeals Council.

When adjudicating a claim for surviving child's benefits involving the
establishment of inheritance rights under a State's intestacy law, SSA
will allow a period of two and one-half years from the date of birth of
the applicant for the commencement and resolution of legitimacy
proceedings before applying a statutory requirement that requires an
illegitimate child to establish paternity during the lifetime of the
father. Adjudicators will continue to apply the other provisions of State
intestacy law in effect on the date of the worker's death.

[1] Under the Social Security
Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-296,
effective March 31, 1995, SSA became an independent Agency in the
Executive Branch of the United States Government and was provided ultimate
responsibility for administering the Social Security programs under title
II of the Act. Prior to March 31, 1995, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services had such responsibility.

[2] At the pertinent time,
Georgia law provided that a child born out of wedlock may inherit from or
through his father or any paternal kin only if the criteria specified in
the statute are satisfied "during the lifetime of the father and after
conception of the child." A 1991 amendment, not applicable in this case,
expanded the time frame for establishing paternity to include the period
when proceedings on the father's estate are pending.

Important Information:

Other Government Websites:

Follow:

External Link Disclaimer

You are exiting the Social Security Administration's website.

Select OK to proceed.

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.